Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SetonHallPirate

Dual Component Model/Presentation

Recommended Posts

3. Incentive to stall when you are outmatched to lessen impact of loss, not exciting.

Given the number of treads/posts on here complaining about stalling after the B1G's, I think it safe to conclude that the incentives in dual meets aren't the problem.

 

That one was the funniest to me. I wasn't going to respond but you baited me into it.

 

As opposed to incentive to stall your ass off to try to win a title or advance at NCAAs? Or to keep it close until the final minute to give an overmatched guy a puncher's chance? And how many times do we see guys at nationals shut down after they've built a margin of safety, content to win but not dominate? It's almost a best practice from the blood rounds onward.

 

For every incentive there is to stall at a dual, there is also incentive to dominate and bonus a guy as well. A dual might incentivize stalling in some cases but would more than offset that by adding the incentive to score bonus. Stalling is stalling. Duals don't make it worse or better. It's a completely separate problem that should be dealt with differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the make up of the committee, quite a few are from schools that don't even have wrestling. I presume they are going to vote for this, unless a lot of schools voice their opinion against it. Why would they vote against something like this that proposed by a wrestling committee? They have no stake in the game.

 

I would be curious what the 77 D1 Coaches Think about this proposal... seems like they should be the ones to determine the answer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true, stalling is a separate matter. This thread deals with a new concept in determining a team champion although I'd like to see a thread on stopping stalling with and w/o a step out rule, a closed vs an open system.

 

Anyway, this new dual component idea seems to be something that comes primarily from a desire to make everything more exciting by incorporating the simplicity of duals dovetailing into the NCAA tournament. Whether the best team comes out on top is subjective. How do you objectively define the best team other than "the one that scores the most points?"

 

In duals the best team 99% of the time is the one that gets 6 wins --(ODU had 6 wins but lost to UNI 21-20) or 5 wins with more bonus. The magic number is 7 wins for guaranteed team victory. SO I would say this is a matter of majority rule; the most wins or bonus is the better team. But how do you define the best "tournament" team?

 

I think this is also a matter of majority rule. If you look at the number of AAs of the top team every year you'll see 5 or more AAs more often than not. The runnerups and thirds will also tend to have 5+AAs but not as often as the champion.

 

The extra data points from the dual component will definitely keep out totally unexpected surprise teams, like Ohio State a few years back taking 2nd with 4 AAs and a less than stellar dual season. The extra data points, in other words, better insures only the best balanced teams take home a team trophy instead of a nucleus trophy, no more "surprises." So at the end of the season the dual component acts as a counterbalance to our top heavy, final round, prestige based tournament scoring.

 

My only question is, will the pre-tourney 8 point lead of the dual champion (50 = first place, 42 = second place) and 15 point lead over the third place team (35 points) that lost by 1 point in the semis to the champion, be too great and too unfair a hurdle to overcome in a very close race? Will coaches be saying, "Hey wait a minute, this picture doesn't add up, so and so got screwed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the make up of the committee, quite a few are from schools that don't even have wrestling. I presume they are going to vote for this, unless a lot of schools voice their opinion against it. Why would they vote against something like this that proposed by a wrestling committee? They have no stake in the game.

 

I would be curious what the 77 D1 Coaches Think about this proposal... seems like they should be the ones to determine the answer...

 

I agree BadgerFan, looking at the vast list of the committee Roster members it looks like there are only four ADs voting who actually have wrestling programs. Also...I don't see this proposal promoting the growth of new D1 programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic which will fundamentally change how we determine a National Championship.

 

Why are we limiting the amount of teams eligible to earn pre-Tournament points to 24 (31% of teams) ?

 

Shouldn't at least the MAJORITY of teams be allowed to earn points ? Why do we limit each Regional to 6 teams with higher seeds getting byes ? Why can't each Region have a complete 8 team bracket which would allow 32 Teams (42% of teams) to earn pre-Tournament points ?

 

Excluding the MAJORITY of teams from earning a portion of these pre-Tournament points by definition affects the credibility of this new system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we limiting the amount of teams eligible to earn pre-Tournament points to 24 (31% of teams) ?

All 77 teams are eligible to earn pre-tournament points. Most won't earn point, but all of them have an opportunity to.

"

As I read it, ONLY 24 Teams will be INVITED to earn pre-Tournament points that go towards Nationals "Team Scoring/Standings".

 

Simply put, the VAST MAJORITY of D1 Teams will NOT have the opportunity to earn a single pre-Tournament point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said that the only teams that have a chance are the ones that are usually at the top of the pile, and so the others have little say in the matter which is pretty much true in terms of the team race.

 

The number of teams are limited on account of time and to reduce the number of preliminary embarrassing blowouts, probably other logistics reasons too.

 

I have feeling this model has a fighting chance if it's not going to involve wrestling people, many of whom may be against it. Also, I don't think it will be extended to Divs. 2 & 3.

 

As I've previously stated, the relatively large gap in the awarded points for the top four (50-42-35-28) could cause a significant inequity in a tight race, and we are seeing tight races now and will continue to see them. The March NCAAs are the premier event. We have to get it right.

 

This model plays with fire as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see a round by round progression of 7-14-21-22-23-24-25. This keeps the incentive for the best teams to remain rather than dropping out for a "rest" before NCAAs, as well as greatly reducing the lead within the ranks of the top 4 teams that will no doubt be vying for the trophies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone said that the only teams that have a chance are the ones that are usually at the top of the pile, and so the others have little say in the matter which is pretty much true in terms of the team race.

 

The number of teams are limited on account of time and to reduce the number of preliminary embarrassing blowouts, probably other logistics reasons too.

 

I have feeling this model has a fighting chance if it's not going to involve wrestling people, many of whom may be against it. Also, I don't think it will be extended to Divs. 2 & 3.

 

As I've previously stated, the relatively large gap in the awarded points for the top four (50-42-35-28) could cause a significant inequity in a tight race, and we are seeing tight races now and will continue to see them. The March NCAAs are the premier event. We have to get it right.

 

This model plays with fire as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see a round by round progression of 7-14-21-22-23-24-25. This keeps the incentive for the best teams to remain rather than dropping out for a "rest" before NCAAs, as well as greatly reducing the lead within the ranks of the top 4 teams that will no doubt be vying for the trophies.

How many teams would tank that quarterfinal match (with the gap between first and eighth only four points) and send out a virtual B-squad rather than actually wrestle it then? Probably quite a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone said that the only teams that have a chance are the ones that are usually at the top of the pile, and so the others have little say in the matter which is pretty much true in terms of the team race.

 

The number of teams are limited on account of time and to reduce the number of preliminary embarrassing blowouts, probably other logistics reasons too.

 

I have feeling this model has a fighting chance if it's not going to involve wrestling people, many of whom may be against it. Also, I don't think it will be extended to Divs. 2 & 3.

 

As I've previously stated, the relatively large gap in the awarded points for the top four (50-42-35-28) could cause a significant inequity in a tight race, and we are seeing tight races now and will continue to see them. The March NCAAs are the premier event. We have to get it right.

 

This model plays with fire as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see a round by round progression of 7-14-21-22-23-24-25. This keeps the incentive for the best teams to remain rather than dropping out for a "rest" before NCAAs, as well as greatly reducing the lead within the ranks of the top 4 teams that will no doubt be vying for the trophies.

How many teams would tank that quarterfinal match (with the gap between first and eighth only four points) and send out a virtual B-squad rather than actually wrestle it then? Probably quite a few.

 

Precisely the point as an argument against this proposal. Anything that promotes tanking a dual or a match HURTS wrestling. In an individual tournament no one tanks a match. That argument seems to be completely dismissed by those arguing for National Duals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read it, ONLY 24 Teams will be INVITED to earn pre-Tournament points that go towards Nationals "Team Scoring/Standings".

 

Simply put, the VAST MAJORITY of D1 Teams will NOT have the opportunity to earn a single pre-Tournament point.

 

Only 24 teams will make it to the final stage of the dual tournament, all 77 teams will have an opportunity to earn a spot in this final stage and score points before the individual tournament begins.

 

Simply put, every single division 1 team will have a chance to earn team points before the individual tournament starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the "tanking." I forgot (naïve) how much some individuals will try to skirt the system rather than cooperate with it. Sad commentary on the dual approach.

 

So my question to you is: How do you reconcile the huge (reverse handicap) gap that punishes the lesser and rewards the greater before the first whistle is blown?

 

I think the model as presented will definitely work well if one team is way better than the others. You can use any reasonable scoring system and likely nothing will change. However recent history suggests otherwise. All it will take is one more "down the wire" final round like we've been having, then the naysayers are going to go back to the reverse handicap and prove mathematically that the wrong team champion (or runnerup or third) was awarded the wrong team trophy. Maybe "the committee" is willing to take that chance with the highest awards of the NCAA. I sure wouldn't. We don't start out an individual bout with the better wrestler ahead 5-0 and we're outraged at blown calls by refs especially in the title match. Yet the utter nonchalance toward the credibility and integrity of how we award a TEAM trophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone said that the only teams that have a chance are the ones that are usually at the top of the pile, and so the others have little say in the matter which is pretty much true in terms of the team race.

 

The number of teams are limited on account of time and to reduce the number of preliminary embarrassing blowouts, probably other logistics reasons too.

 

I have feeling this model has a fighting chance if it's not going to involve wrestling people, many of whom may be against it. Also, I don't think it will be extended to Divs. 2 & 3.

 

As I've previously stated, the relatively large gap in the awarded points for the top four (50-42-35-28) could cause a significant inequity in a tight race, and we are seeing tight races now and will continue to see them. The March NCAAs are the premier event. We have to get it right.

 

This model plays with fire as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see a round by round progression of 7-14-21-22-23-24-25. This keeps the incentive for the best teams to remain rather than dropping out for a "rest" before NCAAs, as well as greatly reducing the lead within the ranks of the top 4 teams that will no doubt be vying for the trophies.

How many teams would tank that quarterfinal match (with the gap between first and eighth only four points) and send out a virtual B-squad rather than actually wrestle it then? Probably quite a few.

 

Precisely the point as an argument against this proposal. Anything that promotes tanking a dual or a match HURTS wrestling. In an individual tournament no one tanks a match. That argument seems to be completely dismissed by those arguing for National Duals.

I've seen plenty of questionable med forfeits in individual tournaments. I even coached one in a HS district semi (slightly injured 4 seed vs a tremendously favored 1, in order to have best shot at third place by not incurring further damage).

 

The same calculation will just be extended to whether resting a/some starter(s) is likely to produce more points than what could be gained by winning further duals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a series of home and away duals in order to increase attendance. I don't expect regional or neutral sites to draw very well, especially if the duals are not the sole determinants of who wins ncaas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone said that the only teams that have a chance are the ones that are usually at the top of the pile, and so the others have little say in the matter which is pretty much true in terms of the team race.

 

The number of teams are limited on account of time and to reduce the number of preliminary embarrassing blowouts, probably other logistics reasons too.

 

I have feeling this model has a fighting chance if it's not going to involve wrestling people, many of whom may be against it. Also, I don't think it will be extended to Divs. 2 & 3.

 

As I've previously stated, the relatively large gap in the awarded points for the top four (50-42-35-28) could cause a significant inequity in a tight race, and we are seeing tight races now and will continue to see them. The March NCAAs are the premier event. We have to get it right.

 

This model plays with fire as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see a round by round progression of 7-14-21-22-23-24-25. This keeps the incentive for the best teams to remain rather than dropping out for a "rest" before NCAAs, as well as greatly reducing the lead within the ranks of the top 4 teams that will no doubt be vying for the trophies.

How many teams would tank that quarterfinal match (with the gap between first and eighth only four points) and send out a virtual B-squad rather than actually wrestle it then? Probably quite a few.

 

Precisely the point as an argument against this proposal. Anything that promotes tanking a dual or a match HURTS wrestling. In an individual tournament no one tanks a match. That argument seems to be completely dismissed by those arguing for National Duals.

You're right...they just don't enter in the first place, or they medical forfeit. Count up all of the medical forfeits at the Southern Scuffle this year...hint: there were a lot of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no team will be disadvantaged due to size or traditional strength of their program. they will all have an opportunity to make it to the dual meet tournament and score points. if they dont get invited, it will be because they are not a top 20 team, and they won't be scoring many tournament points either.

 

adding dual meet tournament points will add a slight, marginal advantage to teams that are stronger 'dual' teams than 'tournament' teams, and conversely disadvantage the less balanced 'tournament' teams.

 

if anything, the weaker conferences with automatic qualifiers to the dual meet tournament will have an advantage, as uninvited teams at the bottom of the big 10 will likely be able to beat one or more of the conference champs that get an AQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

adding dual meet tournament points will add a slight, marginal advantage to teams that are stronger 'dual' teams than 'tournament' teams, and conversely disadvantage the less balanced 'tournament' teams.

 

Agreed. But that's not my point. What about strong dual/tourney teams vs strong dual/tourney teams?

 

Let's say Penn State, Iowa and Minnesota as the top 3 separated by 2 points in their final team scores, but separated by 8-15 points from the carry over system, 50-42-35. I.E., The two scoring systems are NOT commensurate and would allow undue advantage in a tight NCAA tournament. A coach with the most AAs that would have won the tournament had it not been for the dual component differential would have a justifiably big gripe. I'll bet that would be the end of the dual component model; that is, unless it proves to be a huge success with capacity crowds, outstanding TV coverage, and tons of money rolling in to be shared with the have nots.

 

I really hope this model gets approved and tested. That way we'll know for sure what works and what doesn't and either tweak it or abandon ship. Personally, I'm skeptical of any dual solution, rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. The heart of college wrestling's problem is inactivity-- two cats on a fence, fear of exhaustion, saving yourself for the last 60 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's say Penn State, Iowa and Minnesota as the top 3 separated by 2 points in their final team scores, but separated by 8-15 points from the carry over system, 50-42-35. I.E., The two scoring systems are NOT commensurate and would allow undue advantage in a tight NCAA tournament. A coach with the most AAs that would have won the tournament had it not been for the dual component differential would have a justifiably big gripe.

 

whats to gripe about? that they didn't win the dual meet tournament? next time win the dual tournament and don't give your opponent an "undue advantage" by losing to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gripe isn't that you lost the dual meet tournament; it's the incommensurate difference between the two scoring systems, and the perception that connecting dual meets to the traditional tournament is going to save the sport without addressing stalling.

 

On a smaller scale, Nelson wins the Big 10 over Coon in sudden victory. Next time they meet Nelson is ahead 8-0 before their match. Nelson wins again 12-11. McFarland tells Coon, "You should have won the NCAA 11-4. That'll teach you to win the Big 10." Coon replies, "I can't figure it out. I thought I had his number."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The gripe isn't that you lost the dual meet tournament; it's the incommensurate difference between the two scoring systems, and the perception that connecting dual meets to the traditional tournament is going to save the sport without addressing stalling.

 

On a smaller scale, Nelson wins the Big 10 over Coon in sudden victory. Next time they meet Nelson is ahead 8-0 before their match. Nelson wins again 12-11. McFarland tells Coon, "You should have won the NCAA 11-4. That'll teach you to win the Big 10." Coon replies, "I can't figure it out. I thought I had his number."

No. You are comparing match score to team score. 11-4 and 12-11 is worth the same in either a dual or tournament (advance points + place). Hypothetical PSU/IA in dual final the winner will have 7/10 point per weight class advantage. Seven of the losing teams ten wrestlers scoring one extra team point in the tournament phase makes up for what was lost in the dual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? It was an analogy. I was comparing the first loss by decision with both wrestlers starting 0-0 (like the rest of the known universe of sports), then the 2nd loss by decision with Nelson --the 1 pt. winner--starting the bout already ahead 8-0 unlike the rest of the known universe of sports. The point is: Who ever heard of such a thing being superimposed on either a team or individual? Oh wait, I forgot. We do have a socioeconomic counterpart.

 

Sorry Mrs. Murphy. Your baby is beautiful and healthy as can be, but it'll have to struggle because you and Mr. Murphy are from Kenya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
??? It was an analogy. I was comparing the first loss by decision with both wrestlers starting 0-0 (like the rest of the known universe of sports), then the 2nd loss by decision with Nelson --the 1 pt. winner--starting the bout already ahead 8-0 unlike the rest of the known universe of sports. The point is: Who ever heard of such a thing being superimposed on either a team or individual? Oh wait, I forgot. We do have a socioeconomic counterpart.

 

Sorry Mrs. Murphy. Your baby is beautiful and healthy as can be, but it'll have to struggle because you and Mr. Murphy are from Kenya.

But your analogy is not very close. The team championship now starts at the beginning of season duals, in order to qualify for the dual phase. It doesn't begin first day of the individual tournament. There have been multiple scoring changes over the years that effect who would have won. So no, nobody starts behind. A better analogy is that some have scored more in the first period, and the individual phase represents the second and third periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...